the self replicating watch argument

[PsychoSarah]

but common similarity can be also evidence for a common designer. right?

Nope, because even with things known to be designed, such as cars, different designers can create very similar things. That, and a single designer has the capacity to create very dissimilar designs. Picasso's blue era paintings are quite different from his more famously abstract artwork, which includes a statue in Chicago.

we can see it a lot in cars- many cars are very similar because of the same designer- human.

-_- but Homo habilis tools often look like some of the tools made by other members of that genus. Similarities don't even indicate same species, let alone same individual designer. Furthermore, for objects we cannot consider to be "known to be designed", such as grains of sand or rocks, the similarity between any two grains of sand can easily be explained by similarity in the process by which they formed rather than a similarity in designer.

You really need to focus on a trait that is exclusive to things which are designed, and try to demonstrate that living organisms have such a trait.

 

[xianghua]

No they are not. Learn the difference between living and non-living things, then come back to the discussion.

i actually talking about designer. so you can change anything you want, like mutations.

 

[xianghua]

You really need to focus on a trait that is exclusive to things which are designed, and try to demonstrate that living organisms have such a trait.

ic systems for instance. or special shape like human hand.

 

[RealityCheck01]

i actually talking about designer.

You are talking about the many designers of cars and the many designers of the space shuttle with a fantasy that that is something to do with evolution or ID creationism/pseudoscience.

 

[RealityCheck01]

ic systems for instance. or special shape like human hand.

12 July 2018 xianghua: An unsupported fantasy that that the human hand is designed.

This reminds me of the Ken Ham banana fiasco when he argued that the banana was designed because of "ease of use, nutritional value and "colour-coding"". This is almost the inverse (the human hand was designed to fit a banana ). However the cultivated banana was breed by human beings from wild bananas for nutritional value, size and shape.

 

[pitabread]

i actually talking about designer. so you can change anything you want, like mutations.

I'm pretty sure neither of us know what you are talking about at this point.

If you have anything to say about the material presented on the evolution of the flagellum and have learned the difference between biological living organisms and artificial non-living objects, then we can discuss.

If you just want to talk about cars and space ships or whatever, I don't really have any interest in discussing further.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i actually talking about designer. so you can change anything you want, like mutations.

But your many designers don't all design the same things with the same features which is what you'd expect if your argument that "similarities are evidence of design" were correct.

Taking your beloved cars as an example, most models have 4 wheels yet the Reliant Robin has 3 with one at the front and 2 at the back, while the Morgan Aero (and several others) have one wheel at the back and two in front. Then there are models like the Panther 6 with 6 wheels.

So, is disimilarity evidence of design too? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would make everything evidence of design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ic systems for instance. or special shape like human hand.

-_- design is never determined solely by shape itself, but rather, how the shape came to be. For example, rocks can naturally end up looking like arrow heads, but differences in how such rocks are compared to ones made to be pointy from an originally non-pointed shape results in distinct features between human made arrow heads and rocks naturally shaped like them.

 

[xianghua]

If you have anything to say about the material presented on the evolution of the flagellum and have learned the difference between biological living organisms and artificial non-living objects, then we can discuss..

its actually very simple. since human can change a car and add to it parts- its like a creature that can change by mutations. do you agree ot not?

 

[xianghua]

So, is disimilarity evidence of design too? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would make everything evidence of design.

banana and human are also different. so is this disimilarity is evidence for non- common descent too?

 

[pitabread]

since human can change a car and add to it parts- its like a creature that can change by mutations. do you agree ot not?

Once again: you need to learn the difference between living and non-living things. Come back to the discussion when you've taken a Biology 101 course and have figured that out.

 

[xianghua]

-_- design is never determined solely by shape itself

so i cant conclude design just by looking at this?:

https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1128893

 

[xianghua]

Once again: you need to learn the difference between living and non-living things. Come back to the discussion when you've taken a Biology 101 course and have figured that out.

but is said that both can be change. so this is a good analogy. i think that you understand this well and this is why you just repeating yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

but is said that both can be change. so this is a good analogy. i think that you understand this well and this is why you just repeating yourself.

Yes, they both can change, but the mechanism of change is entirely different. That is why it is a bad analogy.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, they both can change, but the mechanism of change is entirely different

irelevant since we are talking about the question of the existence of smell steps. so if a d esigner cant change a car stepwise into a space shuttle- then a natural process cant do it either.

 

[pitabread]

irelevant since we are talking about the question of the existence of smell steps. so if a d esigner cant change a car stepwise into a space shuttle- then a natural process cant do it either.

Oh look, another False Equivalence argument; your favorite logical fallacy.

 

[pitabread]

but is said that both can be change. so this is a good analogy. i think that you understand this well and this is why you just repeating yourself.

The fact you don't appear to understand biology is why you think it's a good analogy. Take the time to learn biology from the ground up and you'll come to understand why you can't compare living and non-living things in the manner you do.

 

[xianghua]

The fact you don't appear to understand biology is why you think it's a good analogy. Take the time to learn biology from the ground up and you'll come to understand why you can't compare living and non-living things in the manner you do.

if you say so pita. meanwhile its seems that the opposite is true.

 

[pitabread]

if you say so pita. meanwhile its seems that the opposite is true.

Only in your imagination of self-replicating cars, watches and robots.

 

[doubtingmerle]

irelevant since we are talking about the question of the existence of smell steps.

Sorry, your argument stinks.